Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:06, 3 May 2006

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Current requests for protection

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

Battle of the Lower Dnieper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hereby request protection of this page. Indeed, it is attacked by some guy (AndriyK) who is about the only one to claim it is POV and all (see the gigantic discussion on the talk page, where 10 ppl try to persuade him that it's not POV). This individual already has an ArbCom entry that led to a month' worth ban, and looks like he's on the loose again.

I therefore ask this page to be protected, obviously without the ridiculous POV tag on it. Protection might be actually a bit strong, but it will at least allow some cooldown... -- Grafikm_fr 09:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Left Party (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection There has been an ongoing revert war since November 2005, as two users (first Itake, and from April 2006 on, Constanz) have been entering different critical materials on the Left Party and Soman has kept removing whole sourced paragraphs, regardless of changes. diff --Constanz - Talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection anon IP vandal - probably same one that is attacking merecat's page. --Tbeatty 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny because the "vandal bombs" as you put them were changes in font size, there couldn't be a more trivial thing to disagree over, however you seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you more than 2 edits in a row is a vandal and then start shouting it in all caps, also I don't recall you using Tbeatty on that page at all, but here you are, so, good for you--172.146.16.64 06:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:merecat (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection anon IP candal keeps dropping vandal bombs. --Tbeatty 06:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Controversy" section of article is more significant in size than the referenced, remaining part of the article. The conspiracy theorists listed are unknown and unreferenced. The information is replaced as soon as deleted. Due to Mother Teresa's posthumous status as "Blessed Teresa" in the Roman Catholic Church has revived her fame, and there are many Catholic Committees (especially in the United States), that take such matters very seriously. I recommend immediate "Semi-protection" status for the section "Controversy" in the article "Mother Teresa". --AJ24 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonomous IP's keep adding useless information that really doesn't need to be there. It's their opinion, and it's not even close to fact. Even new users who are fans do it-we may need full protection.--69.145.122.209 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should point out that we rewrote it. It took days and a huge collaboration by the few grammer friendly users there. It's being ruined. Not that the people who edit it are trying to do it badly... They just don't have a very firm grasp on the English language.--69.145.122.209 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Someone (unidentified) keeps reverting the page bios to what they claim are the official character bios at Cartoon Network. These bios are replete with misinformation and misspelling. After I reverted the page back a few times, the unidentified editor posted a threat at the beginning of the article after reverting it again. The user does not use the discussion page, so there is no dialog. We need a cool down period. This page is always very heavily vandalised and tampered with. Elaich 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Walker (headmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Article has been vandalised several times.Danbarnesdavies 00:00, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Woody Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Article has been the subject of on-and-off edit war for four months. Concsensus needs to be reached and will not be reached any other way save immediate protection followed by discussion.Giles22 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeus_Web_Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - User:Boborak keeps marking this article for deletion - with no good reason. Every other prominent webserver has a wikipedia entry. He has taken personal umbridge at my disagreeing with him over his wrong terminology (see discussion page) and is now defacing the article by removing sections of it, and marking it for deletion. Please stop this user abusing the process and protect this article--Toph3r 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - Article is being hit by a recent wave of ip vandalism. -- Drogo Underburrow 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Digg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Definitely semi, strongly recommend full - There has been an edit war going on for weeks now over the criticisms section, which many of the site's members seem hell bent on removing entirely. Multiple users removing a single statement with 4 citations over and over for "lack of citations" is bullshit. Most of it is being done by IPs and new users, but full protection for a while would be helpful. - Noclip 17:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

London Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection - edit war brewing over what to call "." (I kid you not!) Suggest protection to allow people to cool off a little (not personally involved in article) MartinRe 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - I just followed this today(5/2/06) from a Miami Herald article (on their main page as well) about the ongoing debate within this article. Just a heads up since this is a widely read paper down here in south florida which has a large cuban population which is for the large part against castro. I notice that it was temporarily protected but it was lifted before the article hit the streets. I would recommend protecting this as well as the castro page. Silencethefire 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

REO Speedwagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. I know that protection is generally not done in a dispute between only two editors, but this is an obvious case of vandalism. For several months now, the user REO157 has repeatedly reverted this article to a biased and outdated version. When I noticed this, I attempted to combine information from both versions of the article in order to tell all sides of the story and make everyone happy. However, REO157 continued to revert. I then attempted to discuss the matter with REO157 on the article's talk page. Our discussions were initially productive and I made several changes to the article based on REO157's suggestions. After some productive discussion, REO157's messages became more rude and less fact-based. Then she apparently got tired of this game and went back to her previous antics. She continued to revert the article, supposedly because I deleted interwiki links from the article. When I asked her to provide evidence of this, she ignored me. She also ignored my subsequent attempts to discuss the article's content and my attempts to request mediation. Then this morning she started accusing me of being a sock puppet for four different IP addresses, only one of which belongs to me. (The others trace back to places that I've never even been to.) Please protect this article or let me know what else I can do to resolve this problem. Thank you. KeepOnRollin 07:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fibonacci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - often (every day or so) vandalised by anonymous editors. --Francis Schonken 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection. It is my userpage and I would like to proect it form vandalism.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK.Voice-of-All 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full, due to an ongoing revert war since at least mid march over if Opie and Anthony are consider enimies of the show. Discussion has being on going but has not stoped constant reverts by registered and non registered users. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 05:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Great American Boycott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. It is becoming impossible to keep up with all the vandalism and blatant soapboxing by both sides. Please semi-protect it temporarily.--WilliamThweatt 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a current event. Not a good idea to protect. I will keep an eye. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

At least semi-protection?? It has been done for the same reason at 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests which is also a current event.--WilliamThweatt 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Sensenbrenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Apparent violation of WP:SOCK to evade WP:3RR. --FRCP11 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Developed country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. It looks like countless puppets of User:Cantus, who has been banned from editing this article, continuously making the same edits. Most are by new anonymous users with no other edits, making the identical deletions, against an old consensus in talk. Appleby 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized at least 50+ in the last 2-3 hours or so. It really needs protection status.

Protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesest semi-protection. Vandal jumping around on a school IP block wasting time for several people. --StuffOfInterest 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• All the vandalism is coming from two IPs. One more vandalism edit from one and I'll block it, it's been warned... basically, I don't think there's enough to justify semiprotection. We can just block the IPs. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Rollins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Continuous blanking campaign, multiple sock ip reverts, cooling off period needed--152.163.100.134 21:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full Protection of 19:16, 1 May 2006 requested due to coercive attack and constant edit warring. Two users who are confirmed sockpuppets per WP:RFCU Baba Louis (talk · contribs) and Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) have reinstated a retaliatory attack for edits made to Gurunath page by myself, admin Bhadani (talk · contribs) and 86.10.229.248 (talk · contribs). They keep reverting the page in question to a much older version, after it had already gone through NPOV redux, initiated by one of these two users. Several users have agreed on the page, and now these two users are reinitiating a nonsense edit war just to create more ill feelings. They have been approached by Bhadani who has reminded them that editing on wikipedia is a privilege and not a right , and is investigating the matter further. Despite this, they remain belligerent to him and the other editors involved. Until then, I think it is best to end the retaliatory edit warring which is wasting everybody's time and not working toward conflict resolution. Hamsacharya dan 19:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there is both a user conduct RfC and a 3RR complaint currently open against the user who has made this request. Also note that he is being disinegenous about the "reverting ... to a much older version." This is not the case; the main body of the article is being left unchanged, and a section he previously arbitrarily removed is being restored. He keeps engaging in edit warring by deleting it again without discussion. —Hanuman Das 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I will place WP:3RR warnings on talk page for now. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection por favor. Under massive vandalism attack by the banned User:-Inanna-. —Khoikhoi 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• There has been no vandalism for over 6 hours to that article. Feel free to relist the article if the vandalism continues and cannot be controlled. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • She's back. —Khoikhoi 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zaza People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection por favor. Under massive vandalism attack by the banned User:-Inanna-. —Khoikhoi 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• There has been no vandalism for over 6 hours to that article. Feel free to relist the article if the vandalism continues and cannot be controlled. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • She's back. —Khoikhoi 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WWE Backlash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

im not sure what kind of protection is needed,but people constanly vandalise the 2007 section.67.185.150.130 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.150.130 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Is requested to avoid excesive anonymous input. primeditor 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's not enough activity to semiprotect, I'm afraid. Just revert the vandalism. · Katefan0 /poll 22:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Langley Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. There are a handful of IPs that are repeatedly vandalizing the page (and one IP trying to undo). Bucketsofg✐ 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was annoying. Semiprotected. · Katefan0 /poll 22:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rickenbacker Causeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested until the issues in the revert war of State Road 913 (Florida) are settled. Again, User:SPUI insists upon removing a reference and a section that was intentionally written to sidestep the controversy in the State Road 913 article (and a similar dispute in State Roads in Florida with a similar removal of references by SPUI). The warring started within hours of the creation of the article, which is focused exclusively on the causeway itself and the history of the bridging across Biscayne Bay. This warring must stop... or at least cool off for at least a week. B.Wind 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

State Road 913 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested to enforce a cooling-off period in a fully-blown revert war. When User:SPUI reverts the article with 11 references (and 12 footnotes), eight references are eliminated. After he asked for a reference from the Florida Department of Transportation, two are supplied in the set of 8 that he casually rejects. The two he supplied confirmed only that state maintenance extends only north of the entrance of the Rickenbacker Causeway (which, by the way, is the site of an extension of this edit war that requires another cooling off period - now, contradictorily, SPUI wants the two articles merged, despite his claim that the roadways do not overlap). B.Wind 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Turks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Darkred reverts back anything done. Talking to him on discussion has no use as he does not indicate what exactly he is not happy about. A third party, User:Persian Magi, has reverted back my edits after his vanadlism. But he might strike back as he, for some reason, editing things back to a very early version. I am not sure how to protect the page. I have asked his reasons. I do not like to continue this edit war. 59.167.11.226 14:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

not even involved at all, I just want to stop having to see it show up in recent changes--64.12.116.134 05:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 06:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag on the page says it's only Sprotected, which is a little confusing... –Tifego _{09:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}

I think the wrong tag was used. Voice of All protected it for edit warring, so I assumed the page was meant to be fully protected and have updated the tag as such. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the wrong tag was placed, thank for the fix :).Voice-of-All 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Anti-Masonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New editor isn't seeking consensus on his edits. Semi-protection requested. It's suspected he's a sock of a banned user. File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just work it out on talk. Report it on WP:AN/I if that fails. I am mot going to lock a whole page over one blockable editor.Voice-of-All 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection is requested due to excessive inaccuracies in editing and vandalism. The reverted edits we made from the IP address 208.47.88.133 back to the one made by administrator Mark Gallagher should be the last one. Thank You. -GODDESSY

It doesn't seem like vandalism to me. Please see Misplaced Pages:vandalism. If there are inaccuracies that is a matter for the talk page. I see no reason to protect the page. --Fire Star 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we are requesting full protection. Besides a few other vandals, an administrator named User:Postdlf is causing great harm to the Stephanie Adams topic by removing verified comments and unnecessarily changing them (perhaps to have the "last word" and is therefore taking this way too personal). This is getting out of hand and we very much so need your assistance. -GODDESSY

FreplySpang, Swatjester and Postdlf are all good editors, I'm sure they have things well in hand. I don't really see any reason to protect at this time. · Katefan0 /poll 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As well, calling everyone whose edits you disagree with a "vandal" goes against our assume good faith policy. --Fire Star 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Secret Society of Super Villains members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Referred from a Mediation Cabal case, a changing AOL IP has been adding roman numerals to this page, while the WikiProject Comics community has agreed to not use roman numerals at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(comics)#Roman Numerals. As blocking the IP for 3RR would likely only last for a few hours before the IP changes again, also possibly damaging other users of AOL, I came here to request temporary Semi-page protection. Hopefully this can also make the user create an account, making them easier to contact and in the end settling the issue. Cowman109 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to mediation case, and some vandalism. Voice-of-All 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Article has been repeatedly vandalised by mostly anon users. Vandalised over 20 times in past two days. Lipzydude 22:34, 28 April 2006

This article has already been semi-protected it seems. Cowman109 14:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Already semi-protected by Voice of All a little while back. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus-Myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested please. There is an edit war going on with user A.J.A trying to make sweeping changes with very minimal comments on the talk page (see Talk:Jesus-Myth#The Removed Material). We need the page protected to force discussions on the talk page. Thanks Sophia 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made and am willing to continue making the case for the changes. If I had a comment that wasn't telling me to discuss it first, it might be easier to actually hold a discussion. A.J.A. 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the above - this was posted on the talk page - please protect the article so he is forced to be patient. and discuss Sophia 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like enough activity for a protect. Try to talk things out instead, and if you must, make use of WP:AN/3RR. · Katefan0 /poll 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested. There has been an ongoing edit war over the genre of this band, and it has resulted in Leyasu violating their 1RR (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu and his recent message on my talk page) several times. Several of the parties involved in the Children of Bodom dispute refer to changing the genre to anything but their preferred description as "vandalism". Since I was involved in the arb case, I'd prefer not to protect the page myself due to any possible conflicts of interest. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Like it's counterpart article, World Wrestling Entertainment roster, this page has been under attack from a number of IP addresses and needs to be semi-protected. World Wrestling Entertainment roster has already been protected from the same kind of thing happening here. A new format change in the page is fueling these unproductive edits. Moe ε 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I asked for unprotection of this page some time ago, hoping that vandalism will stop. Seems like it is not the case. Can someone help to restore semi-protection in this article? there are several people who revert using IP's and mainly vandalize the page? Thank you. Ilir pz 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 02:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

Sabbath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was protected due to a temporary edit war between myself and another user about their removal of bibleverse templates. Since then a consensus about the changes has been developed on the Talk:Sabbath (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and the related Template talk:Bibleverse (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs) pages. Ansell 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a new user, and all I want to do is write about the 2006 Press Corps Dinner that the President was at. Somebody was a Bush impersonator, and I want to wrie about that. That is all. Thank you and please can I edit this article? Thank you. Later!!! Chili14 02:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Either wait a few days until you aren't classified as a new user (and you'll be able to edit the page), or post what you want to add to the article on the talk page and ask someone to add it with {{editprotected}}. Request denied. --Syrthiss 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure how long it takes these POV debates to get resolved, and I don't know if wikipedia can stipulate the conditions under which editing can continue... but I would argue that the Dhimmi section can be edited if there's a new writing strategy.

The problem has been that there is no universal agreement as to what Dhimmi means. This problem is compounded with people ranging in attitudes from pro-Islam to anti-Islam to neutral, all trying to peg the single interpretation that they believe is the 'one true meaning'. There is also a subtle effort to compare dhimmi with modern standards for religious minorities, and muting comparison with the standards for religious minorities that preceded it.

I think the most positive step to resolving this would be to illustrate that dhimmi is a wavering concept, like Democracy. Just as interpretations of Democracy have changed throughout history, and vary from location to location, so has the implementation of policy towards Dhimmi. The Dhimmi page should be broken down in "Dhimmi in the Quran", "Religious Minorities Before Islam", "Dhimmi in the Ottoman Empire", "Dhimmi in Arabia", "Dhimmi in Non Muslim Countries", "Dhimmi in the 20th Century" and so on. That would allow contributors (and thus readers) to seperate the individual interpretations from the overall concept.

I'm afraid I don't personally know enough to verify the actual factual claims. Hence why my suggestion focuses on organizing the article in a way that reflects the fluidity of meaning.

If the article remains organized as it is now, more disputes over what is POV and what is fact will be inevitable. Hence, if we cannot ensure that the article is reorganized, it should remain protected.

User:Kaspersky Trust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone please help this guy out..Kaspersky Trust and unprotect his talk page? He sounds like he's suffering. Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar

The page isn't protected. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 12:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Adityanath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has changed his name to Hanuman Das (talk · contribs) through "request for changing username". He is not a "missing wikipedian" and continues to edit the same pages he edited before he changed his username. Why is his page protected to allow for this deceptive redirection? -- Hamsacharya dan 08:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with User:Essjay. Denied. · Katefan0 /poll 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonaparte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protected due to vandalism awhile back, the vandal is probably gone by now. —Khoikhoi 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was also so he himself couldn't edit the page. I recall him as a particularly disruptive, banned user so I'm not inclined to unprotect unless there's some good reason for it. · Katefan0 /poll 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nintendo refers to the Wii console as "Wii" as Apple refers to the iPod DAP as "iPod". They do not refer to them as objects, rather people.

Un-protected. Its been a long enough while. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Still move protected Voice-of-All 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.